Saturday, June 30, 2007

The ban on smoking in public in England is about to come in force soon. And I can't wait for it.

Many people have argued that they have the "right" to smoke, but I haven't seen them ever respect and enforce the equal "right" for others to not have to consume smoke. I've lost count of the number of times I've had smoke in my face and not been able to do anything about it. In crowds, queues, at bars... it is impossible to avoid the smoke. Where are the libertarians there?

Voluntary bans have proved unworkable. A nationwide ban can only be for everyone's benefit. And if people want to smoke they can do so where they will not harm others.

It was inevitable that there would be a boost in the opinion polls for Labour with the Brown accession. Equally inevitable are the calls from certain quarters of the Conservative Party to lurch to the right. (BBC News: Cameron urged to shift on policy) And what a surprise - the calls are being led by Edward Leigh, head of the Cornerstone Group.

These siren calls must be resisted. Past Conservative leaders have lurched to the right and it has got them nowhere. Cornerstone is not known as Tombstone for nothing.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Woodward, like Quentin Davies, defected to Labour some years ago. Until today he was Minister of State for Northern Ireland so it's a natural promotion, although as Gordon Brown has already publicly offered the job outside the party it's not as if Woodward is the first choice for the post.

And he won't be getting a ministerial salary. Not the best advert for potential defectors.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Her Majesty's GovernmentWe will publish the official list of Her Majesty's Government as soon as it becomes available from 27 May [sic] 2007.

CabinetPrime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil ServiceRt Hon Gordon Brown MPDeputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of StateTo be confirmedOther MinistersTo be confirmed

Truly this is a very Brown government!

But once the posts have all been filled there will be many more names. Somehow I doubt we'll ever see a government as small as the following Australian ministry which held ofice from December 5 1972 to December 19 1972:

Quite a few in the media have spoken of how Tony Blair is supposed to return the Seals of Office, but that there aren't any seals for the Prime Minister. If I remember correctly this is because in legislation the premiership is technically a position not an office.

However aren't there seals for the First Lord of the Treasury? That is an office.

Amidst all the discussion about the end of the "Blair era" and the beginning of the Brown era, one point that isn't too clear is who will be running the country from the moment Blair tenders his resignation to the Queen and when Gordon Brown "kisses hands". (Somehow I just can't imagine Brown on his knee kissing the Queen's hand! Yes I know it's not supposed to be literal but that hasn't stopped some ministers giving a kiss anyway.)

This is hardly unprecedented - there have been many times in history when there have been gaps of days if not weeks between on Prime Minister leaving office (or dying) and another being appointed. A convention long existed that when a Prime Minister tended their resignation the entire government left office immediately even though it could take more days before new ministers had been appointed.And the United Kingdom is not alone in this - in the United States it was never very clear until 1937 whether a President's term of office formally ended at midnight or noon (and there's a story of a hungover Senator being President for one day - see Wikipedia: David Rice Atchison). But the modern world expects so much more precision look at the way that both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush took steps to ensure that Presidential power was temporarily transferred for a few hours to their Vice Presidents whilst they were undergoing operations.

For example if there's an attack on this country between Blair and Brown, who has the authority to respond? Does David Miliband still have authority to deal with the flood emergency? Or does the response have to wait until Brown has appointed an Environment Secretary. And for that matter when does the appointment take effect and empower the minister - an announcement by Brown? An announcement by the relevant Department? A formal appointments ceremony? Does anyone know?

Is this the best way to run a country in the 21st century? Is there a better way to do it?

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

News broke today that Quentin Davies has defected to the Labour Party. The biggest shock for me was that Davies was still an MP!

Davies was a regular Europhilliac bastard during the Major years and since then bumbled around in a series of shadow appointments, culminating in his less than effective two years as Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary. It emerged today that he was so highly regarded that David Trimble refused to have meetings with him. (Iain Dale's Diary: Tory Turncoat Joins Labour) References to Davies in Dean Godson's biography of Trimble are few and invariably negative - it seems he only got away with as much as he did because he was one of the few Shadow Cabinet Members unable to undermine Iain Duncan Smith. Even Paddy Ashdown would make a better Northern Ireland Secretary and that's saying a lot.

Since then he's been invisible. I saw him at a Conservative History Group meeting last week but there were also a number of Lords and many from outside Parliament in the room, so it meant nothing.

Yes there'll be Labour crooning over this recruit - although I'd advise Labour members to have a look at Davies' voting record to see if they like what they're getting. And it is not just his voting record that they may not wish to be associated with.

And amongst the reasons Davies gives in his resignation letter is this:

You are the first leader of the Conservative Party who (for different reasons) will not be received either by the President of the United States, or by the Chancellor of Germany (up to, and very much including, Iain Duncan Smith every one of your predecessors was most welcome both in the White House and in all the chancelleries of Europe)....I have never done business with people who deliberately break contracts, and I knew last year that if you left the EPP-ED Group I could no longer remain in a party under your leadership.

I don't mind the party leader being unpopular in the George W. Bush White House. Or care about some grouping in the European Parliament that is contrary to the interests of the Conservative Party.

So don't think for one moment I'm shedding tears at this loss. Nor are many others - see ConservativeHome: Quentin Davies MP defects to Labour!. Who knows it may turn out for better. Sean Woodward's joining Labour contributed nothing to them. His leaving us contributed everything.

Does anyone else fancy raising a little leaving present for him? I think £1.50 in 5p pieces would be appropriate.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

I've long thought that "Harriet" is one of the loveliest female names going. So it's a pity that the most prominent person in politics with that name - in fact the only politician I can think of - is so awful.

Would she really be such an unthinkable choice to step into John Prescott's shoes?

She's also been made Labour Party Chairman, or whatever the position is titled, and Gordon Brown will no doubt expect her to buck up her act - no more writing to Conservative councillors to ask them to support Labour politicians! (Where does New Labour find these ministers?!?!)

The big losers are the Old Labour Left. I don't mean the John McDonnells but rather those who John Prescott has spent the last thirteen years keeping happy with the New Labour Project. Now Old Labour has no voice at the top. This could be the beginning of the long expected fracture.

Who was the last Prime Minister to go to a university that wasn't Oxford or Cambridge? I hear many of you rushing to Wikipedia to work this out. The answer (until Wednesday) is Neville Chamberlain (who went to Mason Science College, later the University of Birmingham). In fact he's the last university educated Prime Minister to have not gone to Oxford - the last from Cambridge was Stanley Baldwin. (The other graduate non Oxbridge Prime Ministers were the Earl of Bute who went to the University of Leiden, Lord John Russell who went to the University of Edinburgh and Ramsay MacDonald who went to Birkbeck College). There have of course been Prime Ministers who went to the "university of life" (John Major, James Callaghan, Winston Churchill and others) but the Oxbridge dominance has been there for a long time. But this week the numbers will change - Gordon Brown is an alumnus of the University of Edinburgh.

Now does this matter, many will ask? After all many non-Oxbridge graduates have headed both main parties for decades now. Gordon Brown is not known for walking away from a fight - even if he had been Oxbridge educated I suspect he would still be willing to take on the universities if the situation arises. This could have interesting ramifications for funding.

However anyone hoping that Brown will support the campaign to end Oxbridge using "MA" to sell degrees may be disappointed - Edinburgh uses "MA" for the first degree, but it is a substantial qualification, not one purchased with no academic work.

Clearly the party has forgiven her for grammar schools, for being a weak Cabinet minister, for being a craven Brownite, for not even being able to remember who the Prime Minister is. And her speech was typical of the woman. Alongside Big Clunking Fists we have Little Rubber Fingers, unable to lay a blow.

This Brown/Harman ticket is less balanced than an anchor. Clearly Labour aren't serious about winning the next election.

Commiserations to Alan Johnson who cam so close to winning - he would have been my second choice. On my one meeting with the man when he was Higher Education Minister I found him refreshingly frank and reasonable. He is one of the best parts of this Cabinet and I hope he keeps a good post in Brown's government.

Friday, June 22, 2007

If the United Kingdom have taken this stance there would be uproar. But Poland has mentioned the unmentionable in the European Union - the effect of the Second World War. For all that we endured, the UK never suffered population losses on the scale of Poland. I wonder if anyone here can comprehend what it means to the Poles today.

I'll admit to not caring much about the details of this row - over the number of votes each state wields in the qualified majority voting system - as I'm so sceptical that it's in the UK's interests to even be in a European superstate at all that details like this don't excite me. That said, the proposed changes stand to benefit Germany and weaken Poland's position significantly.

Are the Poles over the top? I really don't think we can judge this well. Some wounds are very deep about what was lost during the war - on all sides. If the Poles continue on this course, how long before some of those ghosts raise their heads?

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Piara Khabra, MP for Ealing Southall, died last night at the age of 82. One fact that is slowly coming to the forefront is that he was the last MP in the Commons who was a veteran of the Second World War. With his death comes the passing of an era.

He was also one of the oldest MPs to enter the Commons, first being elected at the age of 67. Sadly today too many seem to think age is a disadvantage in politics.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

I've just seen the news that in the forthcoming French legislative elections, the great great nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte is standing. (BBC News: Napoleon runs for parliament seat) My knowledge of the convoluted history of French politics isn't good enough to recall what exactly what happened to the Bonapartists but I thought they were considered to have been the predecessors to Gaullism or something. Napoleon is running for Francois Bayrou's new party - is this a natural home? Can any readers who know better explain?

Monday, June 04, 2007

Few new Doctors hit the ground running faster than Tom Baker does in this story. By the second episode it already seems as though he's been there for ages, such is his domination of the story. Wisely there's little substantial made of the Doctor's change in appearance in the story and instead it focuses on the task at hand.

From a production point of view, Robot has hardly aged at all. The use of video for the location scenes, combined with a robot that looks imposing and expensive, results in a look that remains as fresh and modern today as it did back in 1974. Chris Barry's direction is strong and only let down in a few areas such as the obvious use of a toy tank and a few problems with the CSO and modelwork in the final episode. The rest of the story remains vibrant and full of life.

On the acting side, Ian Marter makes a strong debut performance as Harry Sullivan, although his role in this story is more as a replacement for Mike Yates than as a new companion. Elizabeth Sladen, John Levene and Nicholas Courtney all give their usually strong performances, though UNIT is still being sent up at times such as in their initial assault on the bunker.

The guest cast are a mixture, from Patricia Maynard who brings a fierceness to Miss Winters to Edward Burnham whose Kettlewell is so confused that at times it is utterly unclear what side he is on.

On the scripting side, it is often noted that Robot is exactly the sort of story that was typical throughout the Jon Pertwee years. However it is also a strong sign of the future, being a reworking of a classic movie (in this case King Kong). The Doctor's role in the story is strong, dominating proceedings to the point of often being able to direct UNIT through the Brigadier. The main weaknesses of the story come from Kettlewell's confused position which doesn't add up upon consideration and from the repeated climaxes in Part Four as first the SRS are captured then the second countdown is aborted and then the Robot goes on the rampage.

The Robot itself is nothing short of impressive physically and a highly sympathetic character. It is hard not to feel sorry for it at the end, driven insane by the way it has been tampered with and then by killing its creator. A true victim of events it would have made an interesting addition to the regular UNIT team.

If there's one thing lacking in the story, it's a clear sign of the direction in which Tom Baker is to take his portrayal of the Doctor. He brings a highly manic attitude at times, whilst discreetly focusing on the issue at hand and thus confuses his enemies and the viewer. However he makes a strong performance and gives much hope for later tales. 8/10

Friday, June 01, 2007

Once again it's time for the monthly look at who's been visiting this blog. For those who wish to see stats for earlier months you can now click on one of the labels at the end of this post. Comparisons are with the stats for April.